This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Radio host Hal Turner has been taken into custody and arrested for inciting violence after he blogged that Connecticut Catholics need to take up arms against 2 lawmakers and a state ethics official. Here is what Turner posted in his blog:

My question to everyone is the following: Where does free speech end and hate speech begin?

In this country we do not have hate speech laws. You who claims to be a conservative shouldn't support such laws.

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[37] and incitement to riot.[38] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[39] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[37] and incitement to riot.[38] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[39] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

If violence is being incited by a source, then that source must be detained. In this case, it was a man telling people to attack three specific people. The safety of those people overrides free speech, sorry.

If someone got on the radio and started demanding that their audience bomb another building in NYC, that person would be dragged away in an instant.

Freedom if speech has limits when it comes to public safety. It's why you can't yell fire in a theatre and cite the 1st Amendment when you get arrested.

Radio host Hal Turner has been taken into custody and arrested for inciting violence after he blogged that Connecticut Catholics need to take up arms against 2 lawmakers and a state ethics official. Here is what Turner posted in his blog:

My question to everyone is the following: Where does free speech end and hate speech begin? The First Amendment is fine and dandy, but when you advocate killing, you have gone over the line, and your rights to free speech end right there.

If violence is being incited by a source, then that source must be detained. In this case, it was a man telling people to attack three specific people. The safety of those people overrides free speech, sorry.

If someone got on the radio and started demanding that their audience bomb another building in NYC, that person would be dragged away in an instant.

Inciting violence is not hate speech.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

"Radio host Hal Turner has been taken into custody and arrested for inciting violence after he blogged that Connecticut Catholics need to take up arms against 2 lawmakers and a state ethics official."

He wasn't arrested for hate speech, but inciting violence.

[/QUOTE]

How does that no support my assertion that hate speech is not legal in the US?

Last edited by jamesrage; 06-04-09 at 08:49 PM.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

Well given the laws we have it depends on what group the "inciting violence" upon is.

If a group of KKK members tell their people to go out and kill blacks, indeed it is hate speech.

They wouldn't be arrested for hate speech, if they were arrested it would be for inciting violence. I could be wrong but there is no case were terrorist wearing sheets were arrested for saying " We must killz us some of them niggers" Or Iz wants yous alls to goes out and murders some niggers".

Last edited by jamesrage; 06-04-09 at 08:51 PM.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"